Yeah, they don't know an exact number because, oh, i don't know, maybe because they didn't catch them? What an excuse for your terrible take. I guess when you say something that dumb, you keep doubling down. Congrats.
The Vatican literally has open borders with Italy... World Borders: How to Get From Italy to the Vatican City State - Don't Stop Living
Yeah, it depends on how you define “secure” anyway… What’s more secure: (a) a two counties where millions of immigrants try to illegally pass and 68% are caught… or (b) two countries were 10 immigrants try to illegally pass and zero are caught because the countries don’t care enough to patrol the boarder….
So basically your criteria is where borders are disputed and there is a big military presence due to past wars or conflicts
I don't think those advocating for a true secure border will not be happy until we have roughly 2,000 miles of this type of barrier system along the Southern border.
As did I. As do most people. Completely open border. I guess the difficulty is you can't directly ride the metro into the Vatican and have to walk your way across.
How many of those more secure borders are over 1,000 miles long? How about closer to 2,000 miles long? And how many of those include mountains and desert areas that are impossible to reach by motorized vehicles, and can only be reached on foot or horseback? Easy to patrol the Gitmo, which is only 45 square miles in totality, versus the 2,000 mile border between the US and Mexico. And a little history lesson for those who might need it. The border wasn't really patrolled until the late 20th century. There were US Calvary and military stationed in Texas, NM, Arizona, and California, but not on the border itself. This fact allowed famous Mexican outlaws like Pancho Villa to easily reach Tucson, some 60 miles N of the Mexican border, and beyond. The US didn't establish the Border Patrol until 1924 (a year after Villa passed away). Through the 1960s, the Border Patrol was directed to allow "fruit pickers" to freely come into the country from Mexico without hassle. The agricultural areas along the border relied on their labor. There were certainly issues, especially during WW II, and higher racial tensions. The Zoot Suit riots in 1943 eventually lead to Operation Wetback in the early 1950s, where Americans rounded up any and every Hispanic they could and sent them back to Mexico. Including US citizens of Hispanic descent. Still, coming back across the border was easy. Just present yourself as a fruit picker. But by the 1970s, this policy was causing issues on two fronts. One, drug smuggling started to rise. And two, Cesar Chavez was worried that new immigrants would replace Hispanic citizen children in the fields, work for cheaper, and cause problems among the citizen Hispanic population. The drug issue we are still dealing with today. As for Chavez, he was proven to be wrong, because children of Hispanic immigrants got educated, and found a home in the US middle class instead of joining their parents in the fields. Traditionally, 1% of the Mexican population emigrated to the US during the entire 20th century every year. That number is lower today, but not because of US Border Patrol, but rather the Mexican economy pre-pandemic was doing very well. No reason to leave for a job in the US when they were plentiful back home. Today, there are more C. Americans trying to enter the US than Mexican nationals. Also traditionally, Border Patrol has caught 33% of those trying to enter, which is why we have around 11 million undocumented here in the US today, though not all have entered through the Southern border. About just under half enter legally and stay past a guest or school visa. The number of undocumented has been slowly rising over the last decade, but not as fast as those coming in, because there are always those returning "home." In fact, during the 2008-2010 recession period, we had net negative undocumented immigration, as there were fewer jobs here, and no reason to stay or come. Through this time, we've never had a "secure" border. And today, it's more secure than any time in our history. But with 2,000 miles, some of it very difficult to transverse, it will likely never be fully secure. But it doesn't need to be. 1% of the Mexican population emigrated to the US simply because there were no jobs in Mexico, but plenty of them here in the US. While there are now jobs in Mexico, it's C. America that is struggling, and there are still jobs to be had in the US. Our best option is what two, bi-partisan committees came up with, including the Gang of 8. An expanded guest worker program that allows supply of labor to legally meet demand, with an eventual pathway to citizenship for those who stay out of trouble and wish to stay.
I haven't, but its telling people's ideas of a secure border is basically a permanent ceasefire overseen by militaries. Its hard to think of a border on earth that has more security presence than ours, especially one between two countries that are ostensible economic partners with good relations and no territorial disputes.
Yes, now it is open. IF Vatican City wanted to close it, this is what the wall looks like. Like I said, a very secure border wall. They just happen to let people in. I guess some just feel like arguing. Shocked...
No matter how one views the issue of immigration one has to consider the impact on the economy and social cohesion. A Compendium of Recent Academic Work Showing Negative Impacts of Immigration Is there a scholarly consensus that immigration benefits all Americans? Listening to advocates and their allied media, one might assume so. Vox once ran this headline: “There's no evidence that immigrants hurt any American workers.” A writer for Forbes claimed that immigration restrictionists “are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of social science”. Reason’s Shikha Dalmia has claimed that George Borjas is “literally the only economist of any repute who questions the economic benefits of immigration”. The purpose of this compendium is to dispel such self-serving myths. The truth is that the costs and benefits of immigration are routinely measured, weighed, and debated in academic journals. No fair reading of the literature could conclude that immigration has only benefits — or only costs, for that matter. A 2016 review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine demonstrated the mixed effects of immigration, as have dozens of studies appearing since that time. This compendium uses the National Academies as a starting point, then summarizes a sample of subsequently published papers that find costs associated with immigration. These papers address the labor market impact of immigration as well as broader effects.
There are studies. Then there are real world results. We now know what the results are of reduced immigration, both legal and illegal. Trump reduced legal immigration by a significant amount when in office. And COVID, with Title 42, stopped a significant amount of undocumented immigration. The result is the lack of available labor has contributed to the recent inflation. Trump's policies have caused there to be 2 million less available legal immigrants in our work force. COVID has resulted in an estimated 1 million less undocumented, though that number is much tougher to pin down, as incoming immigrants often replace those who return home. And COVID limited the flow in both directions.
They don't even have a wall on one side. You were asked to name the places that have a more secure border, and you chose one of the few places in the entire world with truly open borders. If that doesn't sum up the argument in which our heavily militarized border suddenly becomes an "open border," I don't know what does. There is no piece of infrastructure or commitment of resources that would "fix" the issue.
Of course there is. Build a real wall. IF we wanted it done it could easily be done. All it takes is money. Anyone saying it can't be done obviously hasn't seen what is done around the world. 30 border walls around the world today
